A summary of the case law and its implications for civil procedure
Introduction
The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal clarified the scope and application of Rule 11 (d) of CPC and its relationship with the doctrine of res judicata. It delved into the facts and circumstances of a civil suit filed by a landlord against a tenant for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.
Facts
The appellant, Gloria Eugenia Rynjah Banerji, had filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the respondent, Teena Saraswat Pandey, who was occupying a shop owned by the appellant in Delhi. The appellant had claimed that she had inherited the shop from her father, who had executed a will in her favour on 01.01.2007. The appellant had also claimed that the respondent had defaulted on payment of rent since April 2006 and that there was no subsisting tenancy agreement between them.
The respondent had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. The respondent had contended that the appellant had earlier filed a similar suit for eviction and recovery of rent against her, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 30.05.2008. The respondent had argued that the Rent Controller had held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the appellant had failed to prove her title over the shop. The respondent had further argued that this finding was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court in appeal and revision respectively.
The appellant had opposed the application and submitted that the earlier suit was dismissed for non-prosecution under Order XVII Rule 2 of CPC and that there was no adjudication on merits. The appellant had also submitted that she had produced a different will dated 31.12.2006, which was executed by her father in her favour, to prove her title over the shop.
The trial court had allowed the application and rejected the plaint on the ground of res judicata. The trial court had held that the earlier suit was dismissed under Order XVII Rule 3 of CPC and that there was a finding on merits regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The trial court had also held that the appellant could not rely on a different will to claim her title over the shop.
The appellant had challenged this order before the High Court, which dismissed her appeal and upheld the order of the trial court. The High Court had agreed with the trial court that the earlier suit was dismissed under Order XVII Rule 3 of CPC and that there was a finding on merits regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The High Court had also agreed with the trial court that the appellant could not rely on a different will to claim her title over the shop.
The appellant then filed a second appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issue under Order VII Rule 11
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC on the ground of res judicata was justified in law.
Legal Provisions
The relevant legal provisions for this issue are:
- Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC, which provides for rejection of plaint when “the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law”.
- Section 11 of CPC, which enunciates the rule of res judicata as follows: “No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.”
- Order XVII Rule 2 of CPC, which provides for dismissal of suit for default when “the parties or any of them fail to appear on such day or where appearing fail to comply with such direction as the Court may give in relation to further conduct or management or disposal or settlement of case”.
- Order XVII Rule 3 of CPC, which provides for decision on merits when “the parties are present but fail to adduce evidence or cause the attendance of their witnesses or perform any other act necessary to further progress of suit”.
Analysis of Order 7 Rule 11
The Supreme Court analysed the case law on this issue and observed that:
- The Supreme Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association held that “the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law can be decided on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be irrelevant for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC”.
- The Supreme Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat held that “res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC if the plaint does not disclose any facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that it is precluded by res judicata principles”.
- The Supreme Court in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava held that “the question whether a suit is barred by res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact and it cannot be decided without taking into consideration the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties in the earlier suit as well as in the subsequent suit”.
Based on these precedents, the Supreme Court held that the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC on the ground of res judicata was not justified in law. The Supreme Court further held that:
- The trial court and the High Court erred in holding that the earlier suit was dismissed under Order XVII Rule 3 of CPC and that there was a finding on merits regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Supreme Court noted that the order passed by the Rent Controller clearly showed that the earlier suit was dismissed for non-prosecution under Order XVII Rule 2 of CPC and that there was no adjudication on merits.
- The trial court and the High Court erred in holding that the appellant could not rely on a different will to claim her title over the shop. The Supreme Court noted that this issue could not be decided without examining the evidence and documents produced by both the parties and that it was not relevant for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC.
- The trial court and the High Court erred in deciding the issue of res judicata on the basis of the written statement filed by the respondent and without taking into consideration the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties in the earlier suit as well as in the subsequent suit. The Supreme Court noted that this was contrary to the settled law and that it amounted to a mini-trial at the stage of rejection of plaint.
Conclusion of Order VII Rule 11
The Supreme Court concluded that there was merit in the appeal of the appellant and that the order passed by the High Court was unsustainable in law. The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration on merits.
You can read more about this case here 1.
